Simply Uncertain

This past week I had a short letter published in Scientific American. The letter concerned a statement made in an article that climate models do not include clouds. This is an incorrect statement that has been around for many years, and it shows up, in my experience, in more science-focused publications. I remember an exchange of letters in Physics Today in 2005. As best as I can tell, the statement is traced to a historical document that stated the first climate models written in the late 1960s contained specified clouds – meaning that they did not change as the climate changed. By the end of the 1970s, cloud parameterizations were becoming standard in climate models, and the interplay between clouds and solar radiation emerged in the 1980s as one of the most important metrics of model performance.

My letter goes on to state that the uncertainty in climate projections associated with the physical climate model is smaller than the uncertainty associated with the models of emission scenarios that are used to project carbon dioxide emissions. This statement is worthy of more discussion. Let me start with a couple of reminders. In all of these endeavors looking to the future we use models. Models are constructed based on observed behavior and are tools for projecting future outcomes. By “physical climate model” I mean a mathematical representation based on the laws of physics. Most simply, in this case, how is solar energy absorbed by the Earth, redistributed, and then emitted back to space? More generally, laws that govern physics, chemistry and biology are incorporated into climate models.

Another important ingredient in making climate projections is what is our future emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases? “Emission scenario” models are based on assumptions of population growth, economic development and sources of energy to drive the economy. Historically, one type of scenario is called “business as usual” and simply extrapolates curves of past energy use into the future. If we take emission curves that, for example, stop in 2005 and project them forward, we see that in the last couple of years we are ahead of those emissions. Generally, business as usual is assumed to be the worst case. We have several emission models based on various assumptions about development and deployment of technology. Current efforts in climate science are striving to make emission models and physical climate models talk to each other – to interact.

Physical climate models are based on the laws of physics and that does provide strategies for determining cause and effect. If cause and effect can be determined to a high degree of certainty, then we can be quite certain about predictions. The economic models, that I know, are based on observations of economic systems that are then represented through a set of mathematical relationships. These relationships are often represented by statistical methods, strive to represent human behavior, and include measures of value that rely on how much humans value something. In atmospheric science, for example, there are a set of “primitive equations” which all agree describe the motion of the atmosphere. Such a set of physically derived equations do not sit at the basis of economic projections. I hope I have stayed out of trouble here. As in a number of previous entries, I draw your attention to Daniel Farber’s Climate Models: A User’s Guide. Farber is neither climate scientist or economist, a fact that I always view as providing a measure of objective evaluation. He evaluates model robustness.

I want to discuss this uncertainty issue a little bit more, and will rely on an old standard figure from the 2001 IPCC Report. This figure has a lot of information about uncertainty.

The figure shows the temperature since the year 1000 forward to year 2100. The temperatures from the past are from observations of different types. The temperatures in the future are from model projections. There are a set of different physical climate models all using a standard set of emission scenarios. I have marked three types of uncertainty on the figure.

In light blue I point to a measure of observational uncertainty. This is the gray spread around the bold red temperature line. This gets smaller as more and more observations become available over time. Going into the future there are the individual colored lines of different models and on the right of the figure are the ranges associated with those models for the set of emission scenarios. The envelope of all of the models with all of the emission scenarios is pointed out by the green arrows. A simple estimate of uncertainty is the spread of the models. This uncertainty grows with time, and the spread when all of the scenarios are included is larger than the spread of any individual model. If one were to look at the individual models, you would see much the same thing. In the absence of different scenarios the models would have a significantly more narrow spread.

There are a number of important points in this simple approach to thinking about uncertainty. Looking at the spread of all models with all scenarios, the spread at, say, 30 years in the future is quite well defined by the lines of the individual models. It takes 30 or 40 years before the difference in the scenarios makes a difference. As a rule of thumb a simple description of uncertainty is that in the next couple of decades “internal variability,” that is, the spread is mostly due to things like El Nino and La Nina is most important. Then there is a length of time where the spread is due mostly to model differences. And as time approaches a century or longer, the spread due to emission scenarios begins to dominate. I note that model differences are always important, and that this difference is strongly related to details of the treatment of clouds. This uncertainty is expressed in how fast does it warm?

The physical climate model is like a telescope into the future; it provides actionable knowledge the Earth will warm, ice will melt, sea level will rise, and the weather will change. As the models improve, that future comes into more and more focus. There are physical relationships that allow a high degree of confidence to be attributed to some aspects of climate projections. For example, the surface of the globe will warm, in any carbon dioxide emission scenario. On this global scale, both model uncertainty and emission scenario uncertainty address the issue of how fast the surface will warm. Neither suggest any plausible scenario where the Earth does not warm. And simply to make the point, this plot does not suggest that the warming stops at 2100; that's just as far as the information is plotted. At local spatial scales, scales for which the models were not designed, the uncertainty analysis follows a much different logic than presented here.

Quoting KRT579:I try to remind people of these facts when ever I get an appropriate forum:

Climate change is the norm for the earth; humans adapted most recently about 15K years ago during the last global big warming event when the sea level rose dramatically. (Here in Maine, the sea shore used to be up to 100 miles inland, as recently as 12K years ago). As documented in the book "Europe Between the Oceans", some people moved north to maintain the same climate (e.g., Eskimos, Laplanders), while others stayed put, eventually leading to farming (I know, I have simplified it here). I don't understand why everyone thinks that humans, with their technological advancements today, will be unable to adapt. Look at New Orleans, they have survived for hundreds of years being below sea level using rudimentary technology. Yes, that city's existence has been and will continue to be tenuous, but its funny how humans persevere, isn't it?

Why is the affect of climate change on ecosystems always viewed as a loss? It is a zero sum game, with some ecosystems and their inhabitants expanding while others will decline, sometimes leading to extinction (remember the saber toothed tiger?). Why is the existing ecosystem somehow more valuable than the one that will takes its place? Wouldn't the boreal forest expand at the expense of the polar bear habitat, increasing song bird populations?

Much of the fear seems predicated on the assumption that we are living in the best global climate for humans, when it is the other way around. We have adapted successfully to the current climate, and would have no matter what the climate was, and in fact occupy areas with a wide range of threatening conditions ranging from monsoons to tornadoes. Again, why the assumption that most people will suffer?

We will not reduce our emissions in any meaningful time frame; our global society is too closely intertwined with emission-based energy whether we are talking about fire pits in Africa or power plants in the US. We need to talk more about adaptative strategies. Why are none of the climate scientists insisting that engineers and economists start studying methods to adapt to higher sea levels, more rain, etc., to reduce potential suffering?

Finally, I never hear about what happens AFTER the climate changes. What, are we all going to go back to hunter-gatherer societies, or maybe the Planet of the Apes (love that scene where the Statue of Liberty is buried on the beach)? Seriously, NO ONE ever acknowledges that life will continue, we will adapt, and at some point the climate will change again, whether caused by us or natural.

Guess I am just tired of hearing people pounding the table about the horrors of future climate change.

Geologist Keith Taylor

Earth's global climate has changed several times before. Anytime the change has been gradual then life was able to adapt. Anytime the change was abrupt, there would be mass extinctions. We are forcing an abrupt change now and there is no assurance that we will be one of the species to survive. What is with all of the complacency towards our actions possibly destroying our future generations? I am totally amazed by this when we can simply ADAPT as to how we do business NOW to most assure that our future generations have a decent chance at survival! OH NO! Just let the future generations figure it for themselves, if they are able to do so, as to how to survive with a climate they have not had time to adapt to!

A geologist, huh? I seriously believe you have spent too much time under a rock!

I'm trying hard to understand. If temperatures are as cold as they have been in the last 10 years and Arctic ice extent is as high as it's been at this time in the last 5, WTF are you guys talking about? Is Dr. Rood concerned he will lose a source of income? Is that why this blog still exists? Really, this is just a joke. You even have guys fabricating stuff. See here: Link

I try to remind people of these facts when ever I get an appropriate forum:

Climate change is the norm for the earth; humans adapted most recently about 15K years ago during the last global big warming event when the sea level rose dramatically. (Here in Maine, the sea shore used to be up to 100 miles inland, as recently as 12K years ago). As documented in the book "Europe Between the Oceans", some people moved north to maintain the same climate (e.g., Eskimos, Laplanders), while others stayed put, eventually leading to farming (I know, I have simplified it here). I don't understand why everyone thinks that humans, with their technological advancements today, will be unable to adapt. Look at New Orleans, they have survived for hundreds of years being below sea level using rudimentary technology. Yes, that city's existence has been and will continue to be tenuous, but its funny how humans persevere, isn't it?

Why is the affect of climate change on ecosystems always viewed as a loss? It is a zero sum game, with some ecosystems and their inhabitants expanding while others will decline, sometimes leading to extinction (remember the saber toothed tiger?). Why is the existing ecosystem somehow more valuable than the one that will takes its place? Wouldn't the boreal forest expand at the expense of the polar bear habitat, increasing song bird populations?

Much of the fear seems predicated on the assumption that we are living in the best global climate for humans, when it is the other way around. We have adapted successfully to the current climate, and would have no matter what the climate was, and in fact occupy areas with a wide range of threatening conditions ranging from monsoons to tornadoes. Again, why the assumption that most people will suffer?

We will not reduce our emissions in any meaningful time frame; our global society is too closely intertwined with emission-based energy whether we are talking about fire pits in Africa or power plants in the US. We need to talk more about adaptative strategies. Why are none of the climate scientists insisting that engineers and economists start studying methods to adapt to higher sea levels, more rain, etc., to reduce potential suffering?

Finally, I never hear about what happens AFTER the climate changes. What, are we all going to go back to hunter-gatherer societies, or maybe the Planet of the Apes (love that scene where the Statue of Liberty is buried on the beach)? Seriously, NO ONE ever acknowledges that life will continue, we will adapt, and at some point the climate will change again, whether caused by us or natural.

Guess I am just tired of hearing people pounding the table about the horrors of future climate change.

Quoting Neapolitan:I'm ignoring him because, as I've said in the past, his behavior is a bit too erratic, and I wasn't aware of the forum rule that said I was required to respond to every denialist rant or third-grade insult.

So the issue: are you too now disputing what I wrote to Mr. Erratic? That is, "Heartland is funded in large part by fossil fuel interests"? Are you sure this is a road down which you'd like to travel? Now, before you answer, note that I didn't say "funded primarily by" or "funded for the largest part by" or "funded only by"; I specifically said, "in large part by". So, again I'll ask: are you sure this is a road you'd like to travel?

So, you cannot actually back-up your claim of Heartland Institute funding? Saying things that are untrue is called lying. You extremists are good at that.

I'm ignoring him because, as I've said in the past, his behavior is a bit too erratic, and I wasn't aware of the forum rule that said I was required to respond to every denialist rant or third-grade insult.

So the issue: are you too now disputing what I wrote to Mr. Erratic? That is, "Heartland is funded in large part by fossil fuel interests"? Are you sure this is a road down which you'd like to travel? Now, before you answer, note that I didn't say "funded primarily by" or "funded for the largest part by" or "funded only by"; I specifically said, "in large part by". So, again I'll ask: are you sure this is a road you'd like to travel?

Quoting Neapolitan:For the hundredth--thousandth?--time, there's nothing wrong with a company making a profit; that's part of the free enterprise system. However, there is something profoundly wrong with a company--or an industry--lying and manipulating and hiding evidence of the destruction they're causing. That's not free enterprise; that's cheating, and it's wrong.

Is there some part of that you don't/can't/won't understand?

So, you cannot actually back-up your claim of Heartland Institute funding? Saying things that are untrue is called lying. You extremists are good at that.

JK, are you even reading your own links? The passage you quote is quite correct, but is from one of the two physicists participating (recall that I mentioned them), in response to a comment by Stephen Wilde. Note how Tallbloke, Wilde and everyone else there are in violent disagreement, and believe they are on the verge of some breakthrough completely overturning some pretty fundamental aspects of radiative and atmospheric physics that have been settled science for over a century. They are, in a word, crackpots.

As for why I don't bother trying to set them straight, I believe I mentioned that they were already ignoring two PhD physicists. I wouldn't add much to that other than to just make fun of them, and Tallbloke, sadly, is a pretty heavy-handed censor for someone allegedly so devoted to the free flow of information. But at least I have you, here, so I don't fell entirely deprived.

If you cannot show them the errors in their statements without making fun of them, then I suppose you should not. It does trivialize your protestations. Your free flow is not so free or flowing is it?

Quoting JupiterKen:Tell me spbloom, is this a snip of a "quite insane" comment?

"As far as GHGs are concerned Joel suggests that an increase causes a rise in the effective radiating height (lets assume he is right on that) but in that situation no more energy is being added to the system from the sun so in theory that should cause overall cooling due to a decline in total system energy content.%u201D

You are running yourself in circles here. Let me describe the process by which warming occurs in more detail. For simplicity, imagine an instantaneous increase in GHGs (say, a doubling of CO2 levels). Before this increase, the Earth was in radiative balance (emitting and absorbing 240 W/m^2). After this increase, the Earth will no longer be in radiative balance because the effective emission layer (i.e., the layer from which radiation can successfully escape to space without being re-absorbed again) is higher in the atmosphere and thus colder. Since this layer is colder, it emits less radiation to space, so that the Earth is now emitting 236 W/m^2 while still absorbing 240 W/m^2 from the sun.

Since the Earth atmosphere is now receiving 4 W/m^2 more than it is emitting, it will warm up. As it warms, the amount that it emits back into space increases until the average temperature at the new effective radiating level is equal to the average temperature at the old effective radiating level (255 K) before the CO2 increase occurred. At this point, radiative balance has been restored but the temperature throughout the troposphere has increased (to the first approximation in a way that maintains the same lapse rate it had before)."

What in particular makes you say so?

Added: Maybe you can go to Tallbloke's blog and straighten them out?

JK, are you even reading your own links? The passage you quote is quite correct, but is from one of the two physicists participating (recall that I mentioned them), in response to a comment by Stephen Wilde. Note how Tallbloke, Wilde and everyone else there are in violent disagreement, and believe they are on the verge of some breakthrough completely overturning some pretty fundamental aspects of radiative and atmospheric physics that have been settled science for over a century. They are, in a word, crackpots.

As for why I don't bother trying to set them straight, I believe I mentioned that they were already ignoring two PhD physicists. I wouldn't add much to that other than to just make fun of them, and Tallbloke, sadly, is a pretty heavy-handed censor for someone allegedly so devoted to the free flow of information. But at least I have you, here, so I don't fell entirely deprived.

I plus that up every time you post it, I'm consistent. I'm glad to see we're all in agreement that subsidies and central economic planning and the neoliberal economic cronyism of bureaucrats picking the winners and losers is totally unfair - whether it be the Big 5 oil companies or Solyndra or SunPower, wrong is wrong no matter who the perpetrators. I'm glad to see you all coming around and agreeing that the merger of State and corporate interests that by definition is fascism or more appropriately called Corporatism as Mussolini put it, is not the direction we want to see this world headed and that genuine free markets with voluntary exchanges of what the markets bear for products and services, of which this country has never really seen-would be the fairest socioeconmic system we humans that are inherently selfish could ever really hope for, or is the centrally planned top down crony-collectivist Neoliberal(in the economic sense of the word) feudalist public-private-partnership fascist model alright only if the guys whom you believe to be on your team the ones perpetuating it?

Solyndra again, huh? Every time I hear someone equate the Solyndra loan guarantee with Big Energy's constant gifts of enormous bags o'cash, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Even if the amounts involved were the same--which they most certainly are not--there's no denying the fact that one bit if financial aid goes to an industry that's trying to clean up the planet, while the other goes to one trying to destroy it.

Quoting nymore: Heartland is Funded in large part by fossil fuel interests? Can you back up that allegation. From the papers released by Gleick this would not seem to be the case.

What is the problem with companies making profits. No profit, no business

I'm not calling you a liar but lets just say you lie a lot.

For the hundredth--thousandth?--time, there's nothing wrong with a company making a profit; that's part of the free enterprise system. However, there is something profoundly wrong with a company--or an industry--lying and manipulating and hiding evidence of the destruction they're causing. That's not free enterprise; that's cheating, and it's wrong.

Quoting Neapolitan:Lots of facts, lots of truth. You may disagree--and I thought you might--but the facts are: 1) Heartland is an organization--one of many--that exists for the sole purpose of obfuscating the truth about CO2-induced warming. 2) Heartland is funded in large part by fossil fuel interests, interests that will rake in continued hundreds of billions of dollars in profit for every year the scientific truth about warming is kept obfuscated.

Aside from that, my analysis/synopsis of the WUWT post was dead on. So how about you tell me where I lied?

Heartland is Funded in large part by fossil fuel interests? Can you back up that allegation. From the papers released by Gleick this would not seem to be the case.

What is the problem with companies making profits. No profit, no business

"As far as GHGs are concerned Joel suggests that an increase causes a rise in the effective radiating height (lets assume he is right on that) but in that situation no more energy is being added to the system from the sun so in theory that should cause overall cooling due to a decline in total system energy content.%u201D

You are running yourself in circles here. Let me describe the process by which warming occurs in more detail. For simplicity, imagine an instantaneous increase in GHGs (say, a doubling of CO2 levels). Before this increase, the Earth was in radiative balance (emitting and absorbing 240 W/m^2). After this increase, the Earth will no longer be in radiative balance because the effective emission layer (i.e., the layer from which radiation can successfully escape to space without being re-absorbed again) is higher in the atmosphere and thus colder. Since this layer is colder, it emits less radiation to space, so that the Earth is now emitting 236 W/m^2 while still absorbing 240 W/m^2 from the sun.

Since the Earth atmosphere is now receiving 4 W/m^2 more than it is emitting, it will warm up. As it warms, the amount that it emits back into space increases until the average temperature at the new effective radiating level is equal to the average temperature at the old effective radiating level (255 K) before the CO2 increase occurred. At this point, radiative balance has been restored but the temperature throughout the troposphere has increased (to the first approximation in a way that maintains the same lapse rate it had before)."

Quoting Neapolitan:Oh, I love the part where he begins by saying, "The following is the correct science, agreed to be so by essentially all of the scientists actively working in the field including 'skeptics' like Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer." Two uber denialists, guys who have been debunked and discredited over and over and over and over and over, are "essentially all of the scientists actively working in the field"?

Really?

I suppose if you discount the 97%-98% of climatologists who most definitely have not "agreed to be so", he may have a point. Otherwise? Well, not so much. Anyway, I'd say this (to borrow heavily from Stephen Markley):

"Ok, so the physics and chemistry of how carbon dioxide warms the earth is so basic, so fundamental, that you would have to come up with an entirely new theory of why adding more carbon to the atmosphere wouldn't warm the planet. Like the reason we have life on Earth is because these gasses trap the sun's heat. Get it? And if you came up with that theory, just starting out, you would win a Nobel Prize the next day because it would fly in the face of basically everything we've learned about the planet for two centuries. Secondly, every bit of physical evidence shows the correlation between human activity, global warming and chaotic weather. Go back to the Seventies and read what NASA scientist Jim Hansen was writing at the time. From melting sea ice to rising sea levels to storm surges to flooding to wildfires to desertification to food price spikes%u2013this is all in the news now every single week. Yes, the planet has gone through periodic warming and cooling periods before but never this quickly and violently. So if it's just natural or if the warming is unrelated to what humans are doing, then go ahead and come up with a second theory about why we are having this abrupt spike in global temperature accompanied by an unprecedented number of extreme weather events that has never happened in Earth's history and how this activity is totally unrelated to burning fossil fuels. When you've formulated these two theories that will make you the most famous scientific mind on the planet, come back and talk to me. Until then, shut...up."

You obviously did not read any of the comments. The OP is one of you...he is a CO2 warmist. You need to read and understand what he said and then what the commenters are saying. They are discussing THE SCIENCE (of course you misunderstand).

Staying on-topic is hard for is it not? I expressed no view and offered no opinion on the matter so what exactly is it I am supposed to "shut...up" about? Alas, I had hopes you might learn something about the subject and instead get nerd rage.

So clarity is denigrating all you disagree with? No facts or truth in your post as usual.

Lots of facts, lots of truth. You may disagree--and I thought you might--but the facts are: 1) Heartland is an organization--one of many--that exists for the sole purpose of obfuscating the truth about CO2-induced warming. 2) Heartland is funded in large part by fossil fuel interests, interests that will rake in continued hundreds of billions of dollars in profit for every year the scientific truth about warming is kept obfuscated.

Aside from that, my analysis/synopsis of the WUWT post was dead on. So how about you tell me where I lied?

Quoting Neapolitan:Not much clarity, if you ask me. Heartland invited Gleick to speak at an event. Gleick responded by saying he'd consider it if Heartland would release its secret list of donors, as he thought it important. Heartland responded by saying that its donors are nobody's business, including Gleick's. Gleick told them he couldn't accept, then. And if yo ask me, he was perfectly in his right to do so.

Clarity? The only thing clear is that Heartland is a vile, manipulative, lying, and hypocritical organization funded by Big Polluter interests. But it didn't take WUWT to prove that; everyone pretty much already knows.

So clarity is denigrating all you disagree with? No facts or truth in your post as usual.

Oh, I love the part where he begins by saying, "The following is the correct science, agreed to be so by essentially all of the scientists actively working in the field including 'skeptics' like Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer." Two uber denialists, guys who have been debunked and discredited over and over and over and over and over, are "essentially all of the scientists actively working in the field"?

Really?

I suppose if you discount the 97%-98% of climatologists who most definitely have not "agreed to be so", he may have a point. Otherwise? Well, not so much. Anyway, I'd say this (to borrow heavily from Stephen Markley):

"Ok, so the physics and chemistry of how carbon dioxide warms the earth is so basic, so fundamental, that you would have to come up with an entirely new theory of why adding more carbon to the atmosphere wouldn't warm the planet. Like the reason we have life on Earth is because these gasses trap the sun's heat. Get it? And if you came up with that theory, just starting out, you would win a Nobel Prize the next day because it would fly in the face of basically everything we've learned about the planet for two centuries. Secondly, every bit of physical evidence shows the correlation between human activity, global warming and chaotic weather. Go back to the Seventies and read what NASA scientist Jim Hansen was writing at the time. From melting sea ice to rising sea levels to storm surges to flooding to wildfires to desertification to food price spikes%u2013this is all in the news now every single week. Yes, the planet has gone through periodic warming and cooling periods before but never this quickly and violently. So if it's just natural or if the warming is unrelated to what humans are doing, then go ahead and come up with a second theory about why we are having this abrupt spike in global temperature accompanied by an unprecedented number of extreme weather events that has never happened in Earth's history and how this activity is totally unrelated to burning fossil fuels. When you've formulated these two theories that will make you the most famous scientific mind on the planet, come back and talk to me. Until then, shut...up."

ADDITION: Just went through his 'Predictions' page. Bonus points for being bold, but, well, just wowser...

What I see in Tallbloke's blog is we are about to resolve many questions particularly what influences our climate (hint, CO2 is a bit player). What do y'all think of the discussion? Like I said above, this is science.

Not much clarity, if you ask me. Heartland invited Gleick to speak at an event. Gleick responded by saying he'd consider it if Heartland would release its secret list of donors, as he thought it important. Heartland responded by saying that its donors are nobody's business, including Gleick's. Gleick told them he couldn't accept, then. And if yo ask me, he was perfectly in his right to do so.

Clarity? The only thing clear is that Heartland is a vile, manipulative, lying, and hypocritical organization funded by Big Polluter interests. But it didn't take WUWT to prove that; everyone pretty much already knows.

Quoting JupiterKen:I find it amazing the number of people that fail to understand the difference between a tax credit and a subsidy. It seems to be a disease of the whacko greens and alarmists.

I find it amazing the number of people who fail to understand the difference between common sense and corporate welfare for a high-polluting, extremely profitable industry that is, by all scientific accounts, urging humanity toward its own destruction. It seems to be a disease of the wacko grays and denialists.

Quoting nymore:Since some on here do not know how to do research and just take spin and talking points from biased web sites let me help you out. Your old nemesis's ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell and BP are not the great enemies as you have made them out to be, this was proven by Weaver and he says so through his own quotes. Here is your real enemy Arch Coal, Peabody Energy, Rio Tinto Energy (these are for the USA), Coal India Limited, Shenhua Group and China National Coal (Are the 3 largest in the world).

All I ask is I wish some on here would do their research first, instead of being talentless, bias hacks.

No it hasn't been proven by Weaver.

Andrew Weaver and Neil Swart have modelled the warming impact of burning 170 billion barrels but the 170 billion barrels isn’t the technically recoverable oil. It’s the economically viable proven reserve, which is a figure calculated by the International Energy Agency in 2006. The total resource is larger.

In 2006, Clive Mather, the former CEO of Shell Canada, said he believes the reserves could be 2 trillion barrels or even higher.

Excerpts from the article "The Oil Sands Of Alberta",

"There are 175 billion barrels of proven oil reserves here. That's second to Saudi Arabia's 260 billion but it's only what companies can get with today's (2006) technology. The estimate of how many more barrels of oil are buried deeper underground is staggering."

Okay, "nutjob" was probably not nice. But delusional, paranoid, racist, misogynistic, islamaphobic, unethical, psychotic college dropout, terrible cartoonist, and denialist are all indicative of a person who demonstrably lacks credibility where certain matters are concerned. And so the point still stands: if this is what the denialist side considers a "credible expert", they're even more desperate than I thought.

Dr Hansen’s June 3, 2011 urgent appeal to the scientific community to get involved. It's worth reading.

Silence is Deadly

03 June 2011

The U.S. Department of State seems likely to approve a huge pipeline, known as Keystone XL to carry tar sands oil (about 830,000 barrels per day) to Texas refineries unless sufficient objections are raised. The scientific community needs to get involved in this fray now. If this project gains approval, it will become exceedingly difficult to control the tar sands monster.

Although there are multiple objections to tar sands development and the pipeline, including destruction of the environment in Canada, and the likelihood of spills along the pipeline’s pathway, such objections, by themselves, are very unlikely to stop the project.

An overwhelming objection is that exploitation of tar sands would make it implausible to stabilize climate and avoid disastrous global climate impacts. The tar sands are estimated (e.g., see IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) to contain at least 400 GtC (equivalent to about 200 ppm CO2). Easily available reserves of conventional oil and gas are enough to take atmospheric CO2 well above 400 ppm, which is unsafe for life on earth. However, if emissions from coal are phased out over the next few decades and if unconventional fossil fuels including tar sands are left in the ground, it is conceivable to stabilize earth’s climate.

Phase out of emissions from coal is itself an enormous challenge. However, if the tar sands are thrown into the mix, it is essentially game over. There is no practical way to capture the CO2 emitted while burning oil, which is used principally in vehicles.

Governments are acting as if they are oblivious to the fact that there is a limit on how much fossil fuel carbon we can put into the air. Fossil fuel carbon injected into the atmosphere will stay in surface reservoirs for millennia. We can extract a fraction of the excess CO2 via improved agricultural and forestry practices, but we cannot get back to a safe CO2 level if all coal is used without carbon capture or if unconventional fossil fuels, like tar sands are exploited.

I am submitting a comment that the analysis is flawed and insufficient, failing to account for important information regarding human–made climate change that is now available. I note that prior government targets for limiting human–made global warming are now known to be inadequate. Specifically, the target to limit global warming to 2 C, rather than being a safe “guardrail,” is actually a recipe for global climate disasters. I will include drafts of the "Paleoclimate Information", "Earth's Energy Imbalance" and "The Case for Young People and Nature" papers, which are so far only published in arXiv; we will submit revised versions of all of these papers for publication this summer.

I will also comment that the tar sands pipeline project does not serve the national interest, because it will result in large adverse impacts, on the public and wildlife, by contributing substantially to climate change. These impacts must be evaluated before the project is considered further.

It is my impression and understanding that a large number of objections could have an effect and help achieve a more careful evaluation, possibly averting a huge mistake. Brief pointed comments may be just as well as longer statements.

In the first comprehensive satellite study of its kind, a University of Colorado at Boulder-led team used NASA data to calculate how much Earth's melting land ice is adding to global sea level rise.

Using satellite measurements from the NASA/German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), the researchers measured ice loss in all of Earth's land ice between 2003 and 2010, with particular emphasis on glaciers and ice caps outside of Greenland and Antarctica.

The total global ice mass lost from Greenland, Antarctica and Earth's glaciers and ice caps during the study period was about 4.3 trillion tons (1,000 cubic miles), adding about 0.5 inches (12 millimeters) to global sea level. That's enough ice to cover the United States 1.5 feet (0.5 meters) deep.

"Earth is losing a huge amount of ice to the ocean annually, and these new results will help us answer important questions in terms of both sea rise and how the planet's cold regions are responding to global change," said University of Colorado Boulder physics professor John Wahr, who helped lead the study. "The strength of GRACE is it sees all the mass in the system, even though its resolution is not high enough to allow us to determine separate contributions from each individual glacier."

Quoting nymore:Peter Gleick better hope he does not get charged with wire fraud. I see he also resigned from AGU as he knew the train was coming down the tracks. What a ham-n-egger, he should be on that show dumbest criminals.

Definition of wire fraud: Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

Sounds like Mr. Gleick did a textbook job under the definition if it crossed state lines.

Wow, if Gleick can be charged with that, imagine the charges that should be levied against the "climategate" hackers: not just wire fraud, but computer fraud, identity theft, obstruction of justice, breaking and entering, invasion of privacy, cyberstalking, computer forgery, and so on... If only the perpetrators of those crimes would admit to their crimes as Gleick has done.

As I said yesterday, what Gleick did was very, very stupid, especially because supporters of the profoundly solid science behind climate change theory already hold the moral and intellectual high ground, and thus have no need to roll in the mud with institutional denialists. But having said all that, the Heartland documents he acquired are now out in the public, and their dishonesty has been exposed for all the world to see. Folks may go ahead and try to charge Gleick with wire fraud (though the objective legal experts who have already weighed in say such charges almost certainly won't stick). But Heartland and those of similar ilk should be charged with something far, far worse.

Peter Gleick better hope he does not get charged with wire fraud. I see he also resigned from AGU as he knew the train was coming down the tracks. What a ham-n-egger, he should be on that show dumbest criminals.

Definition of wire fraud: Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.

Sounds like Mr. Gleick did a textbook job under the definition if it crossed state lines.